Motorists in advanced stop zone

[dellzeqq]

I share Riverman's scepticism. Sure, you can use your judgement, but the way that cyclists attempt to cram through the left hand side feed and then get caught when the lights change is pretty frightening.

I got myself rammed from behind by a cyclist attempting a left side filter the other day. I'd stopped rather than go down the left side of an artic on the north side of Blackfriars Bridge. She yelled 'there's no need to stop'. Well, there you go....

 

[Globalti]

Since I passed my test in 1974 there have been several changes to the Highway code but nobody has made any attempt to educate me about them; common sense has usually enabled me to work out what they mean and incorporate them in my knowledge. But those green zones were a mystery to me and I often stopped on the further line until a few years ago. I expect the majority of motorists still haven't got a clue what they're for.

How many on here understand the solid white lines that denote a cycle lane - are you allowed to cross them in order to undertake a stationary right-turning vehicle or not?

 

[summerdays]

[QUOTE 1145127"]
The highway code will tell you all you need to know.
[/quote]

But how many people look at the highway code after they have passed their test... most people just cram for the test and then forget the information. For example I don't know the stopping distances at all now

. Whereas other bits more relevant to me I know fairly well.

 

[psmiffy]

Personally I am not sure about the point of AZs - unless I am at the front when the lights go red I do not use them - I prefer to remain in the traffic queue as a vehicle - the time saving by moving forward a few cars is not enough to make it worthwhile - and take up the same space/width as a vehicle and therefore controlling the turning traffic - if I am at the front at the lights and there is no AZ I do the same thing effectively creating my own AZ and preventing traffic turning across me.

From one point of view I quite like to see AZs - it means someone somewhere is thinking about cyclists - however I believe that the majority of them are flawed - the stupid little cycle lanes they put in to access them encourage people to filter down the inside with the associated danger from right turning traffic.

As to prosecuting people in vehicles entering them it would be better to start with the cars that run or jump red lights first - when crossing wide junctions from the front or back of the queue you need to keep your wits about you looking for vehicles going across the junction early or late.

 

[661-Pete]

I think, paradoxically, ASLs work best in quiet areas where they're not really needed anyway, on roads where you're likely to share the wait with one or two cars at the most. Then, if you position in the ASL box, and the motorist(s) obey the commonsense intent of the box (law or no law), you can at least be away before the left-hook risk.

But only if the motorist obeys the rules. Not so the prat today - assuredly two planks short of a scaffolding - who crept up behind me (I was the only one at the junction) and then slowly and deliberately passed me and crossed both stop lines, positioning himself with 3/4 of the car across the second line. All the time on full red light. My fault, I suppose, for not positioning myself in primary. His intent became clear. He wanted to turn left, therefore he had to overtake me on the right and then position himself a bit past me so as to make the left-hook more doable. Shrewd thinking, that man - obviously obeying the Highway code* to the letter. But I didn't give him the pleasure. I manoeuvred in front of him, eyeballed him and slowly shook my head. And then I wasn't particularly hurried moving off on the green, either.

*well - some version of the HC...

 

[Banjo]

It isnt entirely wrong for a vehicle to stop at thje advanced stop line as you can do this legally if the light goes red after you cross the first stopline.

Unless you actually see a vehicle deliberately stop in the cyclist area it is possible they are there quite legally.

 

[661-Pete]

It isnt entirely wrong for a vehicle to stop at thje advanced stop line as you can do this legally if the light goes red after you cross the first stopline.

Unless you actually see a vehicle deliberately stop in the cyclist area it is possible they are there quite legally.

Quite correct. But I witnessed 'my' motorist break the law - twice. Because he deliberately crossed both stop lines whilst the lights were at red. And he could have safely stopped at the first, knowing the lights were red.

But all this goes to show, the law is an ass. What is wanted is: cyclists allowed to cross the first stop line, any time. Motorists allowed to cross the second stop line, if they were unable to stop at the first stop line for the reasons stipulated in the HC.

Is there a flaw in this? Even if it makes ASLs work in the way they were intended, I'm still unsure if they make it safer for cyclists - particularly inexperienced.

 

[661-Pete]

Actually - I have a general, open, message for all motorists thinking of doing this. If you see a cyclist stopped at an ASL, intending to go ahead (or if you can't tell: cyclists don't have indicators), and you intend to turn left, don't stop alongside and to the right of but slightly ahead of the cyclist, intending to cut across his or her path. Because this action will only infuriate the cyclist. And if they have any nous they will re-position so as to thwart your planned manoeuvre.

Capizce?

 

[marinyork]

It isnt entirely wrong for a vehicle to stop at thje advanced stop line as you can do this legally if the light goes red after you cross the first stopline.

Unless you actually see a vehicle deliberately stop in the cyclist area it is possible they are there quite legally.

Trivially. We're very obviously talking about those other cases. It's quite common to see vehicles deliberately creep in to block a cyclist when they come along. Not a big deal, but they do do it.

 

[Headgardener]

It isnt entirely wrong for a vehicle to stop at thje advanced stop line as you can do this legally if the light goes red after you cross the first stopline.

Unless you actually see a vehicle deliberately stop in the cyclist area it is possible they are there quite legally.

The light sequence is green, amber for about five seconds then red. So if the light goes to red as you cross the first stop line then you have RLJ'ed as you should have been stopping at the amber which gives you warning that the light is about to change to red. I would think that even at 30MPH there is time to reduce speed and stop for the red light without going over the vehicular stop line.

 

[pwh91]

The light sequence is green, amber for about five seconds then red. So if the light goes to red as you cross the first stop line then you have RLJ'ed as you should have been stopping at the amber which gives you warning that the light is about to change to red. I would think that even at 30MPH there is time to reduce speed and stop for the red light without going over the vehicular stop line.

I think the situation being allowed for is (for instance) when a vehicle is queued turning right as the lights change to red. Seems sensible to allow occupancy this case rather than delcaring the ASL as a no-stop zone which everyone would ignore in any case....

I kind of like ASLs for the reasons given by several others, mainly that they convey some kind of message that cyclists are actually allowed / encouraged to be on the road. Also agreed that they can however give the wrong guidance to inexperience cyclists on filtering etc, but to be frank they're the least of the issues I see around Bristol when it comes to ill-thought out road markings.

 

[porteous]

If you are really old (like me), you will remember the TV campaign to educate motorists every time a significant new traffic sign came into use. The last one I remember was about box junctions. Surely it's a matter of educating road users (including us), then actually enforcing the rules? So why did the Dept of Transport TV ads stop?